convivium wrote:i'd like to know the context and background of the quote if you consider the guy a heretic. i'm interested in his classification of nama rupa and how it relates to the suttas... or if you would contextualize it with mahayana thought whether e.g. yogacara or madhyamaka

The Heretic Sage (Part 1). Plus, like Mike said, it's more of catchy headline. Although, if you read his [i]The Magic of the Mind[/i], you might make a case for it (I wouldn't, but someone might).

Many of you already know about my deep gratitude towards Ven. Ñāṇananda who I consider to be one of the greatest living Dhamma and Meditation masters. If anything you ever read on this blog might have helped you, all that potential puñña goes straight to this exceptional monk whose singular patience, learning, insight, wisdom, humility and penetration of the Dhamma I owe so much.

Now the Ven. Bhikkhu Yogananda (whom I have never heard of before but who considered himself a “Nyanavirist” – which actually is not a bad foundation bringing you quite close to Ven Ñāṇananda’s vicinity of understading) has posted a very detailed report on his meeting with Ven. Ñāṇananda, a meeting which occurred last year. He did an excellent job of summarizing that experience (‘escaping’ Pa Auks Na Uyana monastery ) and foremost of all, the most interesting Dhamma discussion wich took place between the two.

There is lots of interesting points raised. Especially for those of you who are already acquainted with Ven. Ñāṇananda’s writings (such as “Magic of the Mind”, “Concept and Reality”…”Nibbana – the Mind Stilled”) this post is a great read, because Ven. Yogananda has the Ven. Bhikkhu Ñāṇananda clarify some rather tricky Dhamma questions (which is his specialty anyways). He also did a great job of introducing the closest student Ven. Nyanarama probably ever had to a wider audience in his short but very honest and close observation of his meeting with the “heretic sage”. So here is the link for those of you interested:

On a side note: I found it quite fascinating to hear that Ven. Ñāṇananda (again an exception in this matter) is outspoken about a Western import to Sri Lanka with regard to the interpretation of Nibbana/Nirvana. He explains what is wrong with the notion of perceiving Nirvana as “a flame unbound” – a concept/mistranslation which leads towards an existentialist interpretation of the Dhamma and a notion which, when confronted with it 30 years ago in Sri Lanka itself, resulted in the creation of his masterpiece of contemporary Buddhist insight literature: The 33 Nibbana Sermons. If you haven’t read anything from Ven. Ñāṇananda yet, these are a great way to start.

richard_rca wrote:And yet is it assumed that this name & form relationship is fundamentally the same for everyone?

Are you asking me? I guess it's assumed by some. Not by me though. Plus, I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally."

What I meant was that even though you say that words can never really accurately describe anything and that an experience is a thoroughly subjective experience it seems that you would believe that the name & form interactions with the rest of, say, the factors of dependent co-arising would fundamentally be the same for everyone and thus an underlying 'truth'. Is that a fair assessment?

On a side note: I found it quite fascinating to hear that Ven. Ñāṇananda (again an exception in this matter) is outspoken about a Western import to Sri Lanka with regard to the interpretation of Nibbana/Nirvana. He explains what is wrong with the notion of perceiving Nirvana as “a flame unbound” – a concept/mistranslation which leads towards an existentialist interpretation of the Dhamma and a notion which, when confronted with it 30 years ago in Sri Lanka itself, resulted in the creation of his masterpiece of contemporary Buddhist insight literature: The 33 Nibbana Sermons.

Does anyone know if the 'western import' and nibbana as 'flame unbound' talked about here refers to Ajahn Thanissaro's and his 'Mind Like Fire Unbound'? Would be interesting to know.

richard_rca wrote:And yet is it assumed that this name & form relationship is fundamentally the same for everyone?

Are you asking me? I guess it's assumed by some. Not by me though. Plus, I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentally."

What I meant was that even though you say that words can never really accurately describe anything and that an experience is a thoroughly subjective experience it seems that you would believe that the name & form interactions with the rest of, say, the factors of dependent co-arising would fundamentally be the same for everyone and thus an underlying 'truth'. Is that a fair assessment?

No. I did not say words can never "really" (whatever that means) accurately describe anything and I did not say experience is thoroughly subjective. We (particpants of any discourse) might agree that in this time and place this word or these words mean roughly the same thing for us but we cannot, as Habermas has argued, know this intersubjectively through mere communicatve acts (barring reading each other's minds which I believe is possible but very rare). The way you've re-prhased my words ontologizes my perspective, something I, following the Buddha et al, have no interest in.

On a side note: I found it quite fascinating to hear that Ven. Ñāṇananda (again an exception in this matter) is outspoken about a Western import to Sri Lanka with regard to the interpretation of Nibbana/Nirvana. He explains what is wrong with the notion of perceiving Nirvana as “a flame unbound” – a concept/mistranslation which leads towards an existentialist interpretation of the Dhamma and a notion which, when confronted with it 30 years ago in Sri Lanka itself, resulted in the creation of his masterpiece of contemporary Buddhist insight literature: The 33 Nibbana Sermons.

Does anyone know if the 'western import' and nibbana as 'flame unbound' talked about here refers to Ajahn Thanissaro's and his 'Mind Like Fire Unbound'? Would be interesting to know.

I dont' know, but that's what I thought when I saw it. But this just convolutes matters and devolves to schism perpetuation. Some people think Thanissaro's theory is heretical or at least innacurate. Again, there's not a Bureau Of Anti-Heresy we can ask for an official declaration. So we'll just have to keep thinking for ourselves, which is what the Buddha would want.